Appeal 2007-2577
Application 90/006,344
Claim 2 was anticipated
When claim 2 is properly construed as broadly as is reasonable in
view of Prazoff's specification and the cited evidence, a preponderance of
the evidence supports the examiner's finding that claim 2 was anticipated.
Claim 3
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and adds the following limitations—
wherein said tubular shelter is integrally extended from said
second member head portion of said second connecting member
and encircling said conductive terminals for protecting thereof,
wherein said tubular shelter has a diameter slightly larger than a
diameter of said first member head portion for fittingly
receiving said first member head portion therein.
The examiner applies Lin as follows:
Examiner's Refined
Structure application application
of Lin of Lin
a first connecting member 20b 24-27
a first member head portion 24
25 front ←
a second connecting member 20a 21-23
a second member head portion 230 ←
a tubular shelter frame 232 ←
a pair of conductive terminals 242 ←
in 21
Again, the structures of the claim are facially present. Prazoff focuses
on the phrase "said tubular shelter is integrally extended from said second
member head portion" to distinguish Lin. Lin's large threaded cylinder 232
(which the examiner associates with the tubular shelter) does extend
integrally from the rest of Lin's connecting cylinder 23 (which the examiner
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013